If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

As far as I can see, Java was not a consideration in the design of VB.NET,
except in that it was indirectly affected by the desire to maintain
consistency with C#. So Microsoft ended up (probably quite unintentionally)
with 2 Java-killers and no VB6 upgrade path. Brilliant strategy. Truly
breathtaking....

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

§
§ "Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote in message
§ news:ssld2vg310pns1j597n1tga2hihlo16vis@4ax.com...
§ > On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:39:43 -0500, "Larry Triezenberg"
§ <ltriezenberg@pathsys.com> wrote:
§ >
§ > § This seems to be the crux of the folly. There are very few things in VB
§ > § that it was imperative to change. Those few would have been relatively
§ easy
§ > § to accommodate in most cases. This would have greatly increased the
§ > § adoption rate and would have allowed developers and their client
§ community
§ > § to begin utilizing some of the great new features while retaining most
§ of
§ > § their legacy code.
§ >
§ > Unfortunately the foundation on which it was built was beginning to
§ crumble. There were way too many
§ > half-baked implementations in Classic Visual Basic that really didn't make
§ much sense to carry over
§ > into .NET. At best I would call them proprietary to the development
§ environment.
§
§ That won't wash I'm afraid. Certainly the Ruby platform was coming apart at
§ the seams and needed to be replaced, but many of the changes to the language
§ were to elements that were much older than Windows, and in no way
§ proprietary to Microsoft. They had worked largely unchanged with other
§ versions of BASIC pre-Windows, on other platforms including mainframes.
§ There was nothing about those aspects of the language that required a
§ change - yet Microsoft changed them.

Well first the changes to the actual language were few as I indicated. All you need to do is take a
look at the list and identify those present in prior versions of BASIC. I didn't count them but
hazarding a guess they amount to less that a third of what was posted.

Second, some of the language changes required for VB.NET are trivial (such as changing Wend to End
While). None of the Forms based features that changed where present in prior versions of BASIC. None
of the other object based features that changed were present in prior versions of BASIC.

We can forever argue about whether GoSub/GoTo should have been carried forward in .NET. As far as
I'm concerned they're outdated. I'm sure if you've written a lot of code using them you would
disagree. But the writing was on the wall because it has been obvious over the years that Microsoft
was de emphasizing their usage.

My concern has never been with the language because those changes were/are relatively easy to make.
It's been the conversion of the extensions to the language that has been most problematic for me.

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

§ On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:24:37 -0600, Paul Clement
§ <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote:
§
§ >Unfortunately the foundation on which it was built was beginning to crumble. There were way too many
§ >half-baked implementations in Classic Visual Basic that really didn't make much sense to carry over
§ >into .NET.
§
§ Why carry anything over from classic VB into a *new* language?

VB.NET isn't a new language. It's a next generation of the previous just as VB 1.0 was to BASIC.
Once again, if you can identify the changes in the language elements that justify calling it a new
language feel free to do so.

§ Why not just develop the new language, eschewing compatibility 100%, but keep
§ the existing language (used by millions, nota bene) as an alternative,
§ classic RAD package?

Because "Classic" VB is/was a dead end. Microsoft was unable to evolve it beyond what it was. It's a
great tool for building Windows desktop apps or COM components but that's as far as they were able
to go with it. It need to be re-architected.

§ As for half-baked, I think VB6 was the best baked
§ version of all. No 'half' about it; it was top banana. In any case,
§ what, exactly, "was beginning to crumble"? You've never seen a more
§ widely used package than classic VB - although I have to admit that
§ Java is becoming pretty widely used now. If I were Microsoft I'd be
§ seriously worried about Java, you know.

Unfortunately none of the web based features were very good or really caught on. They may have been
somewhat clever but where constrained by the limitations of the architecture. And sorry but the OO
model was half-baked at best. It would tease you with an object-based model and then force you into
a workaround when you wanted to go further.

Yeah, Java made some inroads over the last several years because "Classic" Visual Basic didn't
support features that were demanded of it. I'm sure Microsoft is concerned about Java, but they now
have a competitive product and with Java wrapped tightly around Sun's finger I doubt that you will
see anywhere near the level of enhancements that you will for .NET.

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

"Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote in message <news:vhfg2v08epetnva1f0elcjjjlv7eq8jmm7@4ax.com>...
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:49:49 +0000, Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> § On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:24:37 -0600, Paul Clement
> § <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote:
> §
> § >Unfortunately the foundation on which it was built was beginning to crumble. There were way too many
> § >half-baked implementations in Classic Visual Basic that really didn't make much sense to carry over
> § >into .NET.
> §
> § Why carry anything over from classic VB into a *new* language?
>
> VB.NET isn't a new language. It's a next generation of the previous just as VB 1.0 was to BASIC.
> Once again, if you can identify the changes in the language elements that justify calling it a new
> language feel free to do so.

Similarly, walking from Redmond, Washington to New York City is merely an
afternoon stroll! If you want to claim it isn't, feel free to identify
exactly how many strides, and no more, constitute an "afternoon stroll".
Perhaps there's some "spirit of afternoon strolls" you'd care to show us?

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> L. Ron Dullard <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:t3tf2v043lmagbu52qq3dt1vdf3nu6ji10@4ax.com...
> That was true, or wasn't it? VBX came and went like a summer fling.
> And then Bill fell in love with OCX and VBX was discarded like a Camp
> Delta inmate. Oh, and we had to pay all over again for upgrades.

You're ignoring the irony (I refuse to believe you can't see it) of what you
said then, versus what you're saying now. Were VBX's overhyped? Of course.
Were OCX's overhyped when they replaced em? Absolutely. Are web services
overhyped? Totally.

But each was a progression...a logical step along the way.....and what *YOU*
once criticised...you now embrace as too good to change...

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

VB.Net is similar in syntax only... It may not be a completely new language,
but it is only a shadow of what VB once was.

There have been enough posts here the past two days to support the difficulty
in moving from VB to VB.Net. Don't try and make it seem trivial because
it's not a trivial issue.

Paul Clement <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:49:49 +0000, Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>§ On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:24:37 -0600, Paul Clement
>§ <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote:
>§
>§ >Unfortunately the foundation on which it was built was beginning to crumble.
There
>were way too many
>§ >half-baked implementations in Classic Visual Basic that really didn't
make much sense
>to carry over
>§ >into .NET.
>§
>§ Why carry anything over from classic VB into a *new* language?
>
>VB.NET isn't a new language. It's a next generation of the previous just
as VB 1.0 was
>to BASIC.
>Once again, if you can identify the changes in the language elements that
justify calling
>it a new
>language feel free to do so.
>
>§ Why not just develop the new language, eschewing compatibility 100%, but
keep
>§ the existing language (used by millions, nota bene) as an alternative,
>§ classic RAD package?
>
>Because "Classic" VB is/was a dead end. Microsoft was unable to evolve it
beyond what
>it was. It's a
>great tool for building Windows desktop apps or COM components but that's
as far as
>they were able
>to go with it. It need to be re-architected.
>
>§ As for half-baked, I think VB6 was the best baked
>§ version of all. No 'half' about it; it was top banana. In any case,
>§ what, exactly, "was beginning to crumble"? You've never seen a more
>§ widely used package than classic VB - although I have to admit that
>§ Java is becoming pretty widely used now. If I were Microsoft I'd be
>§ seriously worried about Java, you know.
>
>Unfortunately none of the web based features were very good or really caught
on. They
>may have been
>somewhat clever but where constrained by the limitations of the architecture.
And sorry
>but the OO
>model was half-baked at best. It would tease you with an object-based model
and then
>force you into
>a workaround when you wanted to go further.
>
>Yeah, Java made some inroads over the last several years because "Classic"
Visual Basic
>didn't
>support features that were demanded of it. I'm sure Microsoft is concerned
about Java,
>but they now
>have a competitive product and with Java wrapped tightly around Sun's finger
I doubt
>that you will
>see anywhere near the level of enhancements that you will for .NET.
>
>
>Paul ~~~ pclement@ameritech.net
>Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

I have always believed that VB.NET was only released to provide an escape
route for companies to move away from VB6 to the .NET platform.
MS clearly did not want to continue with VB6 for many of the valid reasons
that Paul mentioned, and they wanted to move to a Java/C++ style language so
they decided on C#. There was no way that industry would be happy to find
that none of their developers could use this new language, in the same way
that they didn't exactly flock from VB to Visual C++ when it was released,
so the decision was presumably made to include a VB syntax version of C#,
and that's fundamentaly what VB.NET is.

The similarites are enormous, and we all know that we can look at some
example C# code and easily translate that into the VB.NET equivalent (seehttp://www.kamalpatel.net/ConvertCSharp2VB.aspx for an online program). Try
doing that with C++ to VB6

We also all know that there is only about a 20% overlap between VB6 and
VB.NET and probably an 10% overlap between VB6 and C# in terms or reusable
experience. This seems to be what all of the arguments revolve around.
Those who claim VB.NET is simply an upgrade to VB6 are not being honest.
VB1-6 (with the slight hiccup of 3-4) were all extensions to the language
without modification to the underlying design structures. VB.NET is a
replacement, and now it's here we have to live with its existence and either
adapt or fall by the wayside.

Cheers,
Jason

"Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote in message
news:vhfg2v08epetnva1f0elcjjjlv7eq8jmm7@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:49:49 +0000, Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> § On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:24:37 -0600, Paul Clement
> § <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote:
> §
> § >Unfortunately the foundation on which it was built was beginning to
crumble. There were way too many
> § >half-baked implementations in Classic Visual Basic that really didn't
make much sense to carry over
> § >into .NET.
> §
> § Why carry anything over from classic VB into a *new* language?
>
> VB.NET isn't a new language. It's a next generation of the previous just
as VB 1.0 was to BASIC.
> Once again, if you can identify the changes in the language elements that
justify calling it a new
> language feel free to do so.
>
> § Why not just develop the new language, eschewing compatibility 100%, but
keep
> § the existing language (used by millions, nota bene) as an alternative,
> § classic RAD package?
>
> Because "Classic" VB is/was a dead end. Microsoft was unable to evolve it
beyond what it was. It's a
> great tool for building Windows desktop apps or COM components but that's
as far as they were able
> to go with it. It need to be re-architected.
>
> § As for half-baked, I think VB6 was the best baked
> § version of all. No 'half' about it; it was top banana. In any case,
> § what, exactly, "was beginning to crumble"? You've never seen a more
> § widely used package than classic VB - although I have to admit that
> § Java is becoming pretty widely used now. If I were Microsoft I'd be
> § seriously worried about Java, you know.
>
> Unfortunately none of the web based features were very good or really
caught on. They may have been
> somewhat clever but where constrained by the limitations of the
architecture. And sorry but the OO
> model was half-baked at best. It would tease you with an object-based
model and then force you into
> a workaround when you wanted to go further.
>
> Yeah, Java made some inroads over the last several years because "Classic"
Visual Basic didn't
> support features that were demanded of it. I'm sure Microsoft is concerned
about Java, but they now
> have a competitive product and with Java wrapped tightly around Sun's
finger I doubt that you will
> see anywhere near the level of enhancements that you will for .NET.
>
>
> Paul ~~~ pclement@ameritech.net
> Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

"Jason Sobell iGadget" <iGadget_@hotmail.com> wrote
> I have always believed that VB.NET was only released to provide an escape
> route for companies to move away from VB6 to the .NET platform.

I'd venture to say that because a lot of development on ASP pages was done
in VBScript, that they wanted to be sure to have a credible migration path from
ASP to ASP.Net. That VB.Net for WindowsForms was a bonus, even if its
migratory path was somewhat bumpy.... Of course once they commited to
including it in the initial offering, it was then a no brainer to market it as VB's
next version, a full fledged participant on the platform.

But, that is just an opinion I've derived from listening to their plans.....

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

Nice post! Few have put it so well.

"Jason Sobell iGadget" <iGadget_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I have always believed that VB.NET was only released to provide an escape
>route for companies to move away from VB6 to the .NET platform.
>MS clearly did not want to continue with VB6 for many of the valid reasons
>that Paul mentioned, and they wanted to move to a Java/C++ style language
so
>they decided on C#. There was no way that industry would be happy to find
>that none of their developers could use this new language, in the same way
>that they didn't exactly flock from VB to Visual C++ when it was released,
>so the decision was presumably made to include a VB syntax version of C#,
>and that's fundamentaly what VB.NET is.
>
>The similarites are enormous, and we all know that we can look at some
>example C# code and easily translate that into the VB.NET equivalent (see
>http://www.kamalpatel.net/ConvertCSharp2VB.aspx for an online program).
Try
>doing that with C++ to VB6
>
>We also all know that there is only about a 20% overlap between VB6 and
>VB.NET and probably an 10% overlap between VB6 and C# in terms or reusable
>experience. This seems to be what all of the arguments revolve around.
>Those who claim VB.NET is simply an upgrade to VB6 are not being honest.
>VB1-6 (with the slight hiccup of 3-4) were all extensions to the language
>without modification to the underlying design structures. VB.NET is a
>replacement, and now it's here we have to live with its existence and either
>adapt or fall by the wayside.
>
>Cheers,
> Jason
>
>"Paul Clement" <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote in message
>news:vhfg2v08epetnva1f0elcjjjlv7eq8jmm7@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:49:49 +0000, Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>
>> § On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:24:37 -0600, Paul Clement
>> § <UseAdddressAtEndofMessage@swspectrum.com> wrote:
>> §
>> § >Unfortunately the foundation on which it was built was beginning to
>crumble. There were way too many
>> § >half-baked implementations in Classic Visual Basic that really didn't
>make much sense to carry over
>> § >into .NET.
>> §
>> § Why carry anything over from classic VB into a *new* language?
>>
>> VB.NET isn't a new language. It's a next generation of the previous just
>as VB 1.0 was to BASIC.
>> Once again, if you can identify the changes in the language elements that
>justify calling it a new
>> language feel free to do so.
>>
>> § Why not just develop the new language, eschewing compatibility 100%,
but
>keep
>> § the existing language (used by millions, nota bene) as an alternative,
>> § classic RAD package?
>>
>> Because "Classic" VB is/was a dead end. Microsoft was unable to evolve
it
>beyond what it was. It's a
>> great tool for building Windows desktop apps or COM components but that's
>as far as they were able
>> to go with it. It need to be re-architected.
>>
>> § As for half-baked, I think VB6 was the best baked
>> § version of all. No 'half' about it; it was top banana. In any case,
>> § what, exactly, "was beginning to crumble"? You've never seen a more
>> § widely used package than classic VB - although I have to admit that
>> § Java is becoming pretty widely used now. If I were Microsoft I'd be
>> § seriously worried about Java, you know.
>>
>> Unfortunately none of the web based features were very good or really
>caught on. They may have been
>> somewhat clever but where constrained by the limitations of the
>architecture. And sorry but the OO
>> model was half-baked at best. It would tease you with an object-based
>model and then force you into
>> a workaround when you wanted to go further.
>>
>> Yeah, Java made some inroads over the last several years because "Classic"
>Visual Basic didn't
>> support features that were demanded of it. I'm sure Microsoft is concerned
>about Java, but they now
>> have a competitive product and with Java wrapped tightly around Sun's
>finger I doubt that you will
>> see anywhere near the level of enhancements that you will for .NET.
>>
>>
>> Paul ~~~ pclement@ameritech.net
>> Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
>
>

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

"Jason Sobell iGadget" <iGadget_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>We also all know that there is only about a 20% overlap between VB6 and
>VB.NET and probably an 10% overlap between VB6 and C# in terms or reusable
>experience.

As someone who started off in the .NOT camp, and then actually decided to
really *try* VB.NET (i.e., not just run the upgrade wizard once and give
up, as I did the first time), I can say that there is much more than a 20%
overlap. It is more like 90%.

It is a hardship however - the problems you have to find answers to when
starting off make it *seem* like there's only a 20% overlap. But looking
at my upgraded code now, the differences are not all that astounding or unsettling.

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

90% overlap eh? I seriously doubt it. Not even Microsoft would be so bold
as to say that. The estimate I heard from them was 60% at big marketing
pep rally I attended. When we *tried* VB.Net we estimated less than 40%
was salvageable. I'm sure it depends on the project.

The other thing we found it would have been nearly impossible to have a 100%
managed code application, since we make extensive use of ActiveX components
that have no .Net replacement.

In terms of straight VB syntax you may be close with your 90% estimate, but
the dependance on the libraries negates the importance of syntax.

VB.Net is just C# with VB syntax. Just like all the other .Net languages.
Few of the mainstream programming languages can be shoe horned into .Net
without major changes. If the language has to altered, then what is the
point. All of the benefits of .Net have existed for some time in Java.
If these features were that important to you, then you just should have dumped
VB long ago.

"Dave" <dave_doknjas@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>"Jason Sobell iGadget" <iGadget_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>We also all know that there is only about a 20% overlap between VB6 and
>>VB.NET and probably an 10% overlap between VB6 and C# in terms or reusable
>>experience.
>
>As someone who started off in the .NOT camp, and then actually decided to
>really *try* VB.NET (i.e., not just run the upgrade wizard once and give
>up, as I did the first time), I can say that there is much more than a 20%
>overlap. It is more like 90%.
>
>It is a hardship however - the problems you have to find answers to when
>starting off make it *seem* like there's only a 20% overlap. But looking
>at my upgraded code now, the differences are not all that astounding or
unsettling.
>
>
>

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

"Kent" <kp@kp.com> wrote:
>
>90% overlap eh? I seriously doubt it. Not even Microsoft would be so bold
>as to say that. The estimate I heard from them was 60% at big marketing
>pep rally I attended. When we *tried* VB.Net we estimated less than 40%
>was salvageable. I'm sure it depends on the project.
>

I know that when I look at my upgraded .NET code vs my old VB6 code for the
same methods/routines, that the code is nearly identical.

I think in general there's too much bigotry in the debate. The .NOT'ers need
to admit that VB.NET isn't a totally different language (I've upgraded VB6
apps to VB.NET so I know the "can't upgrade" criticism is nonsense) and the
.NET'ers need to admit that Microsoft really screwed a lot of previously
productive developers without really understanding the 'classic' VB developer's
mindset ("get it done without any BS"). VB.NET is VB, but you'll have to
pull most of your hair out to get that 10% of code working.

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

I refuse to accept there was any. In 1997 no VB programmers would have
had even a minuscule inkling of the changes which would befall them
within just a few years, although VB.Net was probably (Project Cool?)
already on the drawing board by then. We used VBXs if we wanted
additional, third-party controls. Suddenly, however, they were passť,
and were replaced with OCXs, which were themselves renamed to ActiveX.
At that time, within the parameters of change we were comfortable
with, such arbitrary and costly changes seemed tremendously
significant. And when I see significant changes for their own sake, I
write about 'em! It's what I do!

However, what we are now faced with is several orders of magnitude
more different than ever any of the changes we had thrust on us back
then. Who would have guessed what would await us VB programmers in
2002? Who could have predicted the huge outcry (well, I did a couple
of years ago, but that's another story)?

But I see that you obtain some sense of absolution for VB.Net by
referring to what I wrote six years ago, and since VB.Net needs all
the support it can get if it is to stay afloat, I'm magnanimous enough
to allow you to capitalise on anything else I might have written
before now.

Re: Microsoft's C++ bigotry

On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:04:15 +1100, "Jason Sobell iGadget"
<iGadget_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I have always believed that VB.NET was only released to provide an escape
>route for companies to move away from VB6 to the .NET platform.
>MS clearly did not want to continue with VB6 for many of the valid reasons
>that Paul mentioned, and they wanted to move to a Java/C++ style language so
>they decided on C#. There was no way that industry would be happy to find
>that none of their developers could use this new language, in the same way
>that they didn't exactly flock from VB to Visual C++ when it was released,
>so the decision was presumably made to include a VB syntax version of C#,
>and that's fundamentaly what VB.NET is.
>
>The similarites are enormous, and we all know that we can look at some
>example C# code and easily translate that into the VB.NET equivalent (see
>http://www.kamalpatel.net/ConvertCSharp2VB.aspx for an online program). Try
>doing that with C++ to VB6
>
>We also all know that there is only about a 20% overlap between VB6 and
>VB.NET and probably an 10% overlap between VB6 and C# in terms or reusable
>experience. This seems to be what all of the arguments revolve around.
>Those who claim VB.NET is simply an upgrade to VB6 are not being honest.
>VB1-6 (with the slight hiccup of 3-4) were all extensions to the language
>without modification to the underlying design structures. VB.NET is a
>replacement, and now it's here we have to live with its existence and either
>adapt or fall by the wayside.

Hey, Jason! An honest and truthful statement of the obvious at last!
You see, "coming out" like this is not so hard, is it, people! It just
needs that initial courage to stand up in front of the others and say,
"My name is....etc etc". What a shame that so many other .Netizens
here have attempted to pull the wool over the eyes of us sceptics for
so long.